NEWS: Gay Men Respond Differently To Pheromones

A study performed by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that
homosexual men react differently from heterosexual men to a chemical believed to be a possible human pheromone. If confirmed, this would suggest a
biological component in the development of homosexual traits among human males.

news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The
homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy
and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

While controversy still swirls around the question of “choice” or “destiny” in the case of homosexuality, more research continues to suggest
that, at the very least, it may well be a combination of the two.

For homosexuals seeking to better understand themselves, more research is undoubtedly welcome.

For those who choose to castigate homosexuals as “wicked”, evidence that “God made them that way” would most likely be unwelcome, although it
would probably not have much of an impact on their thinking in the long run.

This finding will add to the knowledge base, but it tells us very little more than we already know. Homosexuals are sexually aroused by members of
their own sex. One would have to be very obtuse, indeed, not to suspect a biological substrate for such a reaction. The case for pheromones in
humans is far from being made, although most suspect that they are an important factor in human sexual behavior.

Perhaps, but psychosematic processes are powerful, and this could easily be the procession of a chemical reaction beginning with a decision in the
brain. It is less a nature/nurture question than, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

When I read this in the news earlier, I got to wondering about lesbians. Do they react in the same way as straight men, when smelling man funk?

It would be an interesting correlation, but anyway...

I sort of agree with Grady, in that biological attraction was a pretty shut case. There have been several studies on odor, and the attraction that it
can elicit, including one using menstruating women, and one using men with unwashed nethers. Both found scent increased rates of attraction.

I always considered it a given that men and women use pheremones as part of the unconcious check-list when sizing up a potential mate. There are
dozens of factors, including learned fears/behaviors, along with social stigma to varying degrees, and visual clues like bald patches or
musculature.

We are animals, and yes, there is something special about us. We have really neat minds, but we're still just animals. We have a reptile living on
our spine and, to a large degree, it determines our actions and behaviors so that we don't have to waste time thinking about them. It's an evolved
separation mechanism, I think. Maybe we just haven't evolved past it, I don't know. Jury's still out on that one.

But as far as gay men being attracted to the smell of other men, the compound they are responding to is a testosterone byproduct, so would they be
more attracted to female steroid users, or perhaps less attracted to homosexual men undergoing a sex change that required estrogen injections?

My thoughts on homosexuality can be summed up in one short sentence. A condition created, nurtured, and mostly confined to cities. The first
homosexuals sprang up in crowded social groups, it's in essence a lifestyle that arises when competition for females is stiff, and there are many
males living in close proximity. I don't have a problem with people being attracted to there own sex, certainly. However, I worry that my genetic
legacy might suffer if I were to raise sons in the city. That's why I plan on moving to a farm before having children (and playing with farm animals
prevents adult alergies and boosts the immune system).

If I move to a farm, have some sons, and they grow up gay, it will disprove my theory, and I'll eat my hat. It seems though, to be a logical
assumption that cities and homosexuality are closely tied.

I would also argue that due to bi-sexuality, genetic homosexuality is more prevalent due to cultural bias against openly homosexual men. Most gay men
of earlier generations still raised families. So, if there is a gentic link, they were perpetuating it. Many modern closeted gay men still marry
women and have children, some of them remain in the closet their entire lives.

So, in a funny way, societal stigma against gays actually led to the proliferation of more gays.

Originally posted by MajicSpeaking as a confirmed heterosexual (don't ask), I find the musky odor of men rather foul.

Precisely. Other women smell really awful to me. It's not bad when I'm with a bunch of women (and everyone's bathed) and we're in an open area,
but when I room with 2 or 3 other women for a weekend, the odor really irritates me.

It's not that the odor is strong (it's just barely there) and these are people who are very clean. But I can on some level detect the pheromones
and it's not pleasant.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
My thoughts on homosexuality can be summed up in one short sentence. A condition created, nurtured, and mostly confined to cities. The first
homosexuals sprang up in crowded social groups, it's in essence a lifestyle that arises when competition for females is stiff, and there are many
males living in close proximity. I don't have a problem with people being attracted to there own sex, certainly. However, I worry that my genetic
legacy might suffer if I were to raise sons in the city. That's why I plan on moving to a farm before having children (and playing with farm animals
prevents adult alergies and boosts the immune system).

If I move to a farm, have some sons, and they grow up gay, it will disprove my theory, and I'll eat my hat. It seems though, to be a logical
assumption that cities and homosexuality are closely tied.

I find this a little bizarre. Not just because I know so many mamma's boy Clay Aiken effeminant Opie Taylor "something's in the well" country
bumpkin church going Gomer Pyle southern conservative farm boy homosexuals (most of which do indeed move to cities), but it came from
you. (Plus you promote playing with farm animals in the same context as promoting heterosexuality.)

I don't get the connection. For example, just because a high concentration of people with a college degree move to a city, doesn't mean raising a
child in the city makes them more likely to get a college degree.

People are stupid [not just you WyrdeOne] when there is no cost to being ignorant. When it is culturally acceptable to pretend all homosexuality is
some trivially made choice, the intellectually lazy will continue to do so.

How people do LOVE to lie about other people when it insulates them inside their smug little cocoon worlds.

To repeat for the 50,000th time, If you are bisexual you may be able to choose, If you are for the most part gay or straight you have no
choice.

Originally posted by RANT
...[J]ust because a high concentration of people with a college degree move to a city, doesn't mean raising a child in the city makes them more
likely to get a college degree.

While there is a movement toward gentryfication (what liberals call urban renewal, when it means more whites and a stronger tax base) of urban areas
(cities), I believe that ultimately, it is more accurate to state that a high percentage of college graduates move to the suburbs.

Originally posted by slank
To repeat for the 50,000th time, If you are bisexual you may be able to choose, If you are for the most part gay or straight you have no
choice

Few would argue that they have a choice as to whom they are sexually attracted. Traditionally, society has expected people to channel their
proclivities into pro-social behaviors. The pedophile cannot help that he is attracted to children, but most expect him to contain himself.

First of all, if 'Gay' was evolutionary behavior, or biological differences here is a question for ya...

Shouldn't Gay men emit different pheromones, and only THAT should turn on the other gay men?

Otherwise, they have not developed anything. What is the use of being attracted to the same men as women?

The chemical they tested was NOT a human pheromone. A 'derivative' is hardly natural.

"If barbecue smelled like feces, would you still lust after it?"
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. How could food smell the same as waste? There would be no polarity, Majic...

I think many people function as animals, but it is hardly a part of everyone. To deny that it can be overcome is equal to submitting to it

Its not when competition for females is 'fierce' that homosexuality only abounds, it is also in any society preparing for war, as well as a society
where women de-masculate men for a large part.

This makes men think they cannot turn on a woman, because of how the woman tries to take the masculine (active) role.
Believing there is something wrong with you = First step towards experimenting

Believing its not wrong, its natural = First step in what is called a downward spiral that can take affect over many incarnations, as well as take
many incarnations to over come, on the road back to spiritual well-being.

I draw comparisons from the animal kingdom. The example of chimpanzee populations where males can increase their chances of survival by cozying up to
other males, as opposed to females (which might land them in a fight) is fitting. Homosexual behavior (sans penetration) has been observed in plenty
of animal groups, we're not alone in that regard.

The behavior isn't evil, or wrong, it's naturally evolved. Humans started living in cities and cultivating wheat and other crops, and they were
subjected to the same environmental conditions (approx.) as chimpanzees in densely populated, geographically restricted territories. It only makes
sense that we would start evidencing certain traits that were selected in our cousins.

I know that many gays come from places other than cities, and my point was not to try and say that youth moving to the city invariably turn gay. My
point was, as stated above, a deduction based on behaviors selected by evolution. It makes sense from a survival standpoint, so it makes sense to our
genes. And our genes make us who we are. Those people with an altered hypothalmus are selected for longer, safer lives in large peer groups.

So once again, for those who think I'm ignorant, check your own definition of evolution. Does where we were born (city/country) or where we move
have anything to do with the genes that mingled in mommy's tummy? No. The behavior was selected in the cities of our monkey ancestors, and refined
in places like Jericho, Crete, Rome, Athens, and so on, perhaps still reinforced today, by de-selecting those young men who get in fights and kill
each other over a girl.

So is there an argument against my point in the house, or just another insult from slank?

It has been noted that homosexual behaviors have been noticed in lab mice when the population density crosses a certain threshhold. It is true of
cattle as well. The "Bullers" (Bulls or steers that assault other males) don't generally exhibit dominance/submissive behavior unless they are
penned in a corral.

Olsen and other biologists have suggested that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a response to crowding.

As an aside, I think that pherimones have a definite impact on our attractions.

I personally think that women taking hormones as "the pill" produces much less pherimones than women who are not taking anything. I will say that
my wife was not on the pill when we met, and she certainly had crowds of men following her wherever she went.

It is important to note that women on the pill still attract lots of men, too. So I think that genuine pherimones are a factor, and not "mind
control" when it comes to breeding.

You always have a choice of what to do with your lovlies. If you don't then you are some kind of robot. We all have urges. Being adult means
choosing appropriate responses. I think the whole argument about gay/straight is really one of what are acceptable responses to our (biological)
urges.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.